i recently posted over at the osxhints forums with a script that i hacked together to enable right- clicking on a folder in OS X and choosing “Open in Terminal” from the Automator menu.
Its pretty handy to be able to use the Finder to navigate instead of cd .. etc etc… and then to start a terminal session just where you want to be. Of course it can also added to with another do script statement to reuse an inactive terminal window to do any other script… and i also noticed that if you put a \n into the command string it will do a line break and create a sequence of commands (but it breaks if you hit the hammer button to compile the script - you have to save it without compiling if you want to do this little /n newline trick).
here is the script for reference: on run {input, parameters}
repeat with i in input
set theWin to (quoted form of POSIX path of (i as alias))
end repeat
--set myWin to window 1
--set theWin to (quoted form of POSIX path of (target of myWin as alias))
set commandString to "cd " & theWin --& " ls -al"
------------------
tell application "System Events"
if not (exists process "Terminal") then
tell application "Terminal"
activate --start terminal if needed
end tell
end if
repeat while not (exists process "Terminal")
delay 1 --wait for terminal to be ready
end repeat
end tell --Sys Events
----------------
tell application "Terminal" -- Get a free window to run
activate
set windowCount to (count of the windows)
if windowCount is greater than 0 then
repeat with w from 1 to windowCount
if window 1 is busy then
set frontmost of window 1 to false
else
do script commandString in window 1
set frontmost of window 1 to true
return
end if
end repeat
end if
tell window 1
do script commandString
set frontmost to true
end tell
end tell
end run
WOW - first time i had 4 cores under my desk… and in such a damn sexy metal box too…
this machine rules and i loaded it to the brim with software and storage and RAIDed up 1.5 TeraBytes of hard disk space and this puppy is stable like a coin ducktaped to the underside of a 4 ton rock…
i had 3 processes over 100% CPU usage SIMULTANEOUSLY… while listening to iTunes, browsing the web, moving 1.5 GB files (on the same drives that the video encoding process were working)… and not even a burp…
i am so grateful to have access to this machine… and look forward to digital creativity explorations and explosions in the coming times!
if you want one of these, and you think you can actually make use of the horsepower… you don’t need to think twice about if its worth it… every penny and more….
so easy to install extra memory and hard drives, that i could kiss the designers feet…
so fast and stable that i feel that i can create anything digitally imaginable…
anyway… i don’t like to tell people what to do, but… GET ONE!
assuming you have mplayer properly installed on your mac os x (Tiger) system,
you can create applescripts to grab movies from the web.
i made one for wmx files that works quite nice.
this little tidbit from ericlager in a comment at macosxhints was helpful: set newFile to POSIX path of (choose file name with prompt "Save movie as:" default name "iTunes Video.mov")
Over here:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?p=742664
someone reported the same error and then ./configured with –disable-win32
and was able to get past that WINE related error…
then i got an error related to mp3lame
then i found this command:
sudo oprt port -dv install mplayer
via google on the opendarwin list
i had already installed macPorts from the suggestion here:
http://www2.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/macos.html
some quotes from luf-team @ yahoo by various group members
>Have. But it’s not for the ‘majority’ of people and we’re not going to change
>that.
from : http://www.culturalcreatives.org/
“While Cultural Creatives are a subculture, they lack one critical ingredient in their lives: awareness of themselves as a whole people.”
There is a very quickly emerging subclass of consumers that is being labeled the cultural creatives they / we are 50 mil strong in the US and 80-90 in the EU… But we still frame ourselves against the masses or the ‘majority’…and are relatively unaware of out collective strength.
[warning : incoming arrogant overstatement]
The world will always be full of 60-80% sheep. The question is what principles do the sheep follow.
[/ioa]
>>microgravity research.
>>There is a LOT of interest in it, but little opportunity to pursue actual
>>research given the limits of the Shuttle schedule and the lack of facilities and
>>manpower on the ISS.
just heard a story about a ESA reasearcher who lost two years of prep work and many Euro’s worth of cash on a failed microgravity experiment - because her boss miswired some small electronic component… point being lots of interest, lots of money allocated, lots of starving thirsty people, lots of pollution, lots of pesticide on our food….
Can we play a role in cleaning up this environment so that we deserve to visit space? Can we prove that we know how to engineer stasis within a very supportive environment before we go trying to inhabit a much less supportive one?
Space is sexy. Space is the ultimate escape from the disaster we are creating…
>my guess is that virgin galactic will use their money from the
>intial LEO tourism to try to expand their market sevices all the
>way to a lunar resort.
point is can we take the profits from this outlandish luxury of space tourism and redirect to provide sustainable infrastructure REGARDLESS OF THE COST/EFFICIENCY… before we get so far ahead of ourselves to be building lunar resorts….
Wild what a search for vegatable based ink-jet refills can bring up:
A NOTE ON GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS
& OTHER GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS)
Although Ben studied genetic engineering at university, all of our breeding is by traditional methods only. On grounds of both safety and ethics we strongly oppose all genetic engineering and the patenting of plants.
The subject is very complex, but the dangers are very simple. We believe that, without exaggeration, the release of Genetically Modified crops truly is a dangerous practice that threatens the entire ecosystem.
It is simply not true that Genetically Modified crops will solve third-world food problems or require less pesticides. This is no more than advertising ’spin’.
Genetic engineering is NOT just a variant of what farmers and breeders have done for centuries. It is a completely new science that can give very odd, very different and highly unpredictable results. It is not ‘natural’ for a plant to have a fish gene in it, and there is no knowing what odd poisons the plant might make as a result of finding fish proteins floating around in its sap.
GM plants are probably unsafe to eat, but we don’t know for sure, because due to intense political lobbying, none of these plants have undergone any food safety testing(!) - which is why it is important that food should be labelled as to whether it contains GM ingredients or not. The only benefit of GM crops is to the large multinationals that are using them to take control of the worlds food supply.
We will not knowingly have anything to do with genetically modified seeds
Part of The Real Seed Catalogue at www.realseeds.co.uk
The odds that even that first bacterium in the primordial soup was due
to pure chance looks something like this:
1 protein is about 200 amino acids, there are 20 possible amino acids�
that makes a 1 : 20^200 chance that a single protein could emerge
properly from pure chance.
This is about 10^260 which is enormously* greater than the number of
atoms spread out in the observable universe (estimated at 10^80)
*Lets take a quick look at how enormously - 10^260 is equal to
10^80×10^180 which is 10^20 more than 10^80×10^80 (or 10^80 squared)
(side note � I just totally bugged out a business guy from Detroit
with this idea and by telling him that science and evolution via
random chance is basically impossible bullshit especially since our
point of observation is by nature NOT objective� he wasn’t exactly
ready to hear that, but I guess his dreams will be interesting
tonight)
One more time. There is about as much chance for a single protein to
randomly emerge as there is for you to throw an apple out into the
cosmos and it to bounce off of exactly 200 of the atoms in the
observable universe (and the 10^160 parallel universes) and return to
earth with your name written on the side of it.
OK so now we have a dilemma. DNA is verifiably the LANGUAGE of life.
Not only do we not know who what or how this language was/is/can be
written� we aren’t even looking for such an intelligent force.
Now lets just take a short breath back into the statistical mathematical realm.
The absolute MOST simple form of life (smallest bacterial genome) has
580,000 DNA letters/bases. Even with the ridiculous premis that the
introns (unknown undeciferable repetitive regions of DNA) are actually
“junk” comprising 97% of most genomes.. that leave 17,400 bases � 5800
amino acids (at 3 bases per aa) � 29 proteins.
So as if a 1:10^260 wasn’t impossible enough odds for you, lets make
that 1:10^260 x 29
:-) or is it (1:10^260)^29 ??
Ok back to the language thing. All this math is based on the premis
that the language and the letters already exist. ACTG � the building
blocks of DNA. Pretty complex molecules in themselves. We could launch
into another statistical exercise in combinatorial mathematics at this
point if felt like it� Something about the number of atoms in each
ACTG molecule. But lets ignore that for now, lets just assume that the
primordial soup was magically, randomly, chaotically, or just somehow
endowed with these 4 extrememly complimentarily organized molecules.
Lets imagine that this soup was so full of these little molecules and
they were bouncing into each other and ready to combine into DNA
(actually I’m not even sure if they would do so given the chance � but
lets assume they would and may have). [Again this is simply a
calculation about the random occurance of a meaningful string of
information in the language of DNA and it is “not to mention” the need
for a very specific system of complex proteins for transforming that
DNA into actual proteins]
How fast would they have to “try” different combinations to result in
that first super simple 29 protein bacterium???
Lets look at it from 2 time scales:
1. the currently accepted idea is that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and our first records of single celled organisms is at 3.5 billion
years � leaving 1 billion years (3.2×10^16 sec) for random
combinations. That leaves 9.2×10^244 attempts per second. By our
current estimates that is 9.2×10^164 times the number of atoms in the
observable universe.
2. if we consider our estimates of the age of earth to be very wrong
and actually the earth is 9 billion years old and there has been life
for 4.5 billion years � that leaves 4.5 billion years (2×10^244 sec)
for life to emerge. Or a measly 2×10^164 times the number of atoms in
the observable universe.
The number of atoms in the observable universe (again 10^80) is _____
times larger than the number of atoms () on earth.
–note: please also take a brief moment to consider the difference
between atoms on earth and the existence of ACTG molecules which are
needed to even start the craps table that we are calculating about.
If you are still convinced (if you ever were) that life emerged from
random chance, please explain how such a phenomenon as humans could
have evolved from random chance if there aren’t enough atoms in the
observable universe nor NEARLY enough time for those that do exist to
try their chance at the craps table of primordial soup and result in a
single meaningful protein (of which our genetic makeup codes for
~150,000). Once again not to mention the decoding system and protein
construction system needed to do something about the tiny strand of
meaningful DNA.
